Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Oh Do *@#$%& Off, Greenwald (regarding building on a conservation-forever easment specifically, but also in general)

City-promised-to-protect-a-strip-of-land-along-a-creeCome on Greenwald.  Seriously?

When people fought decades ago to save land from development, forever, do you believe what they were really fighting for was to save the land from development 'forever, or until there was pressure to build housing, whichever comes first' ?

You are so full of shit, dude.

The whole point of the 'forever' part is that we all knew that housing was coming some day, so we set aside specific pieces of land that would not be developed — forever.  Forever.  And if the City left a loophole, fuck 'em.  We all know what the intent was:  don't fuck that up, City.

I'm not saying the rent isn't too damn high.  It is.

But it's not due to a housing 'crisis', a term that you think creates a 'crisis', but actually just make you and yours like like dumb asses.

The rent is high because Davis is a desirable place to live, and more people want to live here than there is housing.  And it's probably going to be that way for a long, long time.  No matter what y'all chicken-littles do to try and re-distribute the wealth like good little socialists.  You aren't going to make a dent in the housing situation.  But you may end up raising taxes on everyone, including — directly or indirectly — renters.  And the people hurt most?  The working poor, as always.  The rich can handle the increases, the really poor have a social net and if they win the lottery (wait for subsidized housing) they have a place to live.

Meanwhile, everyone gets screwed, by you and yours.

I have long thought that the tax-evading Vanguard played a valuable role in Davis, even if I disagree with 90% of what is published.

But I no longer do.  We've got rid of problematic committees.  Maybe it's time to say goodbye to problematic blogs.  Depending on what your definition is of 'problematic' is, is.

Or some developer can come along and save y'all's ass.

And if they do so generously so that you can publish another 1000 articles on housing (boring!), maybe you can implement that new webpage format you've been promising for half-a-decade.  I mean seriously, dude, I'm just trying to help.  Your current format is unreadable.  Unless you think having the page jump while you're reading it helps people.  And recently, the page has been spontaneously jumping to a page that tries to convince people their computer has been taken over by a virus.  Kind of like how Davis has been inhabited by a virus for many years: a blog, virus, a blog virus.

But the anti-virus is a virus named The Davisite.  Long may she wave.

Anyhoo, I solicit comments regarding the Vanguard claiming we should consider getting rid of a riparian protected forever habitat, because open space and the environment don't matter when there's a housing CRISIS (everybody scream!!!).

Posted by

Alan C. Miller

on

in

, , , , , , ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

38 responses to “Oh Do *@#$%& Off, Greenwald (regarding building on a conservation-forever easment specifically, but also in general)”

  1. catherine L portman

    an adult, objective rebuttal of someone’s position would be more helpful community discourse.

    Reply
  2. Ron O

    The rent is high because Davis is a desirable place to live, and more people want to live here than there is housing.
    I hear that from lots of people, but I’ve never viewed Davis as a “particularly” desirable place to live.
    Davis is a good place to live if one “has to” live in the valley in the first place (e.g., due to various factors that people consider when choosing a place to live).
    It would be interesting to see where people would actually want to live, if factors such as housing prices, job availability, weather, geography, amenities, traffic, and recreational opportunities were the same “everywhere”.
    My guess is that some place like Phoenix, AZ would suddenly have “no population”, while some place like Santa Monica, Tiburon, or Atherton would have a lot more. Truth be told, the entire central valley, including Davis, would be devoid of population in that scenario. Nothing but farms, vernal pools, coyotes and burrowing owls.
    The rent is higher in Davis than surrounding communities because of UCD students. One of the few groups who (almost) “need” to live close to, or on the campus.
    For those who think the school system should be driving planning needs, Davis is NOT the most-desirable local place for families (e.g., for those with more-limited income/assets). The reason being that they can get so much more for their money, some 7 miles north (and still be quite close to UCD, and attend DJUSD schools if they so desire). Too bad that they don’t pay DJUSD parcel taxes, though.
    Truth be told, the “commute” from Woodland to UCD is probably easier and more direct than some of the more far-flung proposed developments in Davis. Including the proposed “golf course” development.
    Though a “second-hand house” in Davis (e.g., a Stanley Davis house) is generally a better investment. You can get a nice one for about $750K, which is a better-deal (overall) than most new houses in Woodland.
    For sure, families are NOT going to be moving into the shoebox-size units that the school boosters claim would be desirable for them. Families want decent-sized houses, yards, places to park, etc. In short, they have some of the most-negative impacts on traffic (e.g., “soccer Mom”), and demand plenty of costly amenities such as schools, parks, libraries, etc. Why any city would actively pursue that population is beyond me.
    If Davis was REALLY that desirable, only Elon Musk would be able to afford a house in Davis. Try raising the price of a Stanley Davis home to 10 million, and see what the “demand” is for it.
    Demand is a function of price. The higher the price, the less demand there is. And since Davis housing prices are approximately equivalent to the state median, that should tell us something about just how “desirable” Davis actually is compared to other communities in the state. (In other words, it’s about average, in terms of desirability.)

    Reply
  3. Alan C. Miller

    CLP say: “an adult, objective rebuttal of someone’s position would be more helpful community discourse. ”
    Nah, that’s no fun 😐
    But hey, if you want to respond adultly here, go right ahead!
    To RO: Relative to the surrounding valley, Davis is desirable, and that’s what matters: the region.

    Reply
  4. Keith

    “an adult, objective rebuttal of someone’s position would be more helpful community discourse.”
    Alan’s critique here was very helpful for my discourse. That’s what I like about Alan’s articles, they’re never boring and get to the point with some humor and sarcasm involved. Alan hit on how something that was supposed to be forever is now somehow open for discussion. That’s not how ‘forever’ works. Alan, don’t ever change.

    Reply
  5. Keith

    “Your current format is unreadable. Unless you think having the page jump while you’re reading it helps people.”
    I never access The Vanguard from my Iphone, it’s almost unreadable for me. My desktop (an IMAC about 9 years old) is somewhat better, but lately I’ve been getting pop-ups saying this website is consuming too much power. THERE’S TOO MUCH GOING ON!

    Reply
  6. Ron O

    ” . . . an adult, objective rebuttal of someone’s position would be more helpful community discourse.
    You’re referring to someone who wears a donkey suit, outside of Vanguard fundraisers. But he is plenty-amusing, and is a talented writer. Seems to be a decent human being, as well.
    To RO: Relative to the surrounding valley, Davis is desirable, and that’s what matters: the region.
    Are you sure about that? The region itself competes with other regions. Such competition would include “staying in place” (in whatever locale one is currently located in.) And Davis competes with places like Roseville, Rocklin, Granite Bay, etc. As well as places like Woodland (for the reasons I mentioned).
    I have a relative who recently moved to a retirement community in Rocklin, I think. (From a “desirable” Bay Area city.) She totally regrets it, which everyone in the family could have told her in advance. Plus, paid a bunch of capital gains taxes, when selling her old place.
    Let me repeat: Davis sucks compared to most places in the Bay Area. If you don’t believe me, go outside “right now” in either location. 102 degrees in Davis, as I write this. (One’s eyebrows don’t start singing until it reaches about 112 degrees, however.)

    Reply
  7. Alan C. Miller

    KO say: “THERE’S TOO MUCH GOING ON!”
    No, KO, you make money by having things flashing all over that mess up your page that people can click on and give you a few pennies, while driving away all the people who might actually do that.
    KO say: “never boring and get to the point with some humor and sarcasm involved”
    Yup
    “KO say: “don’t ever change”
    Fat chance of that 😐

    Reply
  8. Alan C. Miller

    RO: “Seems to be a decent human being, as well.”
    I am a decent human being. Thanks for noticing 😐
    I also use the words “fuck” and “shit” in blog posts.
    Because I’m decent . . .
    . . . and like to use swearzies

    Reply
  9. Stephanie

    These crude commentaries don’t help anyone. Very disappointed to see this happen in the Davisite. We are all concerned about finding a way to provide affordable housing and preserve agricultural land. Being so angry and mean to each other is not going to help the situation.

    Reply
  10. Ron O

    “I am a decent human being. Thanks for noticing”
    I think this has to do with honesty/integrity; not necessarily “agreement” with any particular view. Which is also the reason I wouldn’t put David in the same category as you.
    Somehow, honesty/integrity shines through over time. Everything else doesn’t really matter.
    I have yet to see two people agree on everything, when being “honest”. Though if I’ve totally being honest, anyone who doesn’t agree with me is probably wrong.
    (Assuming there’s only two choices. A “binary” choice, as some might describe that.)

    Reply
  11. Alan C. Miller

    S say: “These crude commentaries don’t help anyone.”
    They help me.
    S say: “Very disappointed to see this happen in the Davisite.”
    I know. It used to be such a classy rag before I came along.
    S say: “We are all concerned about finding a way to provide affordable housing and preserve agricultural land.”
    The point being: some, at least one of whom may have been named in the headline, value one over the other to the point that ‘forever’ has been redefined to: ‘let’s see if the City Attorney can help us find a way around this’. (Why? “Housing CRISIS” . . . everybody scream!!!)
    S say: “Being so angry and mean to each other is not going to help the situation.”
    Is writing housing articles four times a week going to help the situation?
    As for angry and mean (each other? who’s the ‘other’? And if there is another, other, have they been ‘othered’ ?)
    Really, not angry, and mean is in the eye of the beholder. In my mind, having one’s comments omitted repeatedly from a blog because mod mod doesn’t like what a commenter says — is mean. But mod-ing does give them mean-ing, I guess.
    Really, it’s more like “I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused”. Thanks, Elvis.

    Reply
  12. South of Davis

    Stephanie (who sounds like a nice person) says:
    “We are all concerned about finding a way to provide affordable housing and preserve agricultural land”
    I don’t want to give Stephanie a hard time but I have three questions (that I hope she will answer):
    1. What is the maximum dollar amount of monthly housing cost that you would define as “affordable”?
    2 Are you aware that at current interest rates, insurance rates and utility rates that it will be tough to build anything in CA that rents for less than $3K/month?
    3. Where would you build “affordable” housing if not on agricultural land (maybe the back 9 of a course near Keith’s house)?
    P.S. I just looked and Zillow says that the blogger we all know and love lives in “affordable” housing just north of El Macero between a ~3,600sf home that Zillow says is worth $1.5mm and a ~2,800sf home that Zillow says is worth $1.3mm and I don’t see any other vacant lots in the area…
    P.P.S. When I was involved with politics n SF in the 90’s I found out that a huge percentage of nannies, cooks and cleaning ladies who worked for big donors to the Mayor and the DNC had “affordable” housing (but I’m sure nothing like that would ever occur here in Davis)

    Reply
  13. Colin Walsh

    At some point the adult thing to do is to call out a$$holery for what it is. The Vanguard for years has taken developer money and ground out pro-development articles all while dodging taxes under the guise of being a non profit even while persistently violating non-profit laws. Worse, the vanguard has villainized and engaged in character assassination for years. That’s what they do. the facts are not on their side so they go as low as they can. It is long past time to call out the bad behaviour and well, if Alan wants to do so with a few swear words and some humor – more power to him. It’s mild compared to the outrage the Vanguard deserves.

    Reply
  14. Ron O

    Regarding affordable housing (or “any” type of new housing), my question is – who is it for? Seems to me that it’s almost always for non-residents. In other words, the “purpose” it serves is to grow the size of the city.
    Whereas places such as golf courses and natural areas serve existing residents (including non-human residents).
    This goes to the question of “need”. It’s almost as if the housing activists are running around like a chicken with their heads cut off, screaming “housing crisis” with no actual data, no definitions, no nothing. And yet, some are basing city, county, and state policy on this nebulous assumption.
    Sure, there’s homeless people, but what assumptions are being made regarding that population?

    Reply
  15. Alan C. Miller

    CW say: “if Alan wants to do so with a few swear words and some humor – more power to him.”
    Alan does want to do so. More power to me.

    Reply
  16. Ron O

    Worse, the vanguard has villainized and engaged in character assassination for years. That’s what they do. the facts are not on their side so they go as low as they can.
    Indeed. More-accurately, they encourage their resident peanut gallery supporters to do so in violation of their own supposed policies.
    I don’t see much of that on the Davisite.

    Reply
  17. South of Davis

    Ron writes:

    It’s almost as if the housing activists are running around like
    a chicken with their heads cut off, screaming “housing crisis”
    with no actual data
    I’m sure there are a few real actual crazy “housing activists running around like
    a chicken with their heads cut off, screaming “housing crisis” with no actual data” but most like David and every YIMBY group I am aware of are left leaning people getting “paid” by developers who have learned that if they can reframe the debate so anyone against letting them build more million dollar homes on farmland is “against affordable housing” and the “cause of the homeless crisis” they will get the OK to build…
    P.S. Has anyone ever noticed that “affordable” housing is NEVER “affordable” for taxpayers. In the 90’s the average cost to just “maintain” (with union labor) the public housing in SF was MORE than the total rent for most apartments in Davis. Maybe Davis can turn the Wildhorse back nine into a parking lot where we can provide $12K/month parking spaces for the homeless (and move those guys that have been under the new Pole Line bike bridge all year to Wildhorse).
    https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/san-francisco-paying-12k-month-for-homeless-rvs-while-tech-workers-sleep-in-pods/

    Reply
  18. Alan C. Miller

    SUCCESS!!!
    Well, it appears being provocative and using swears can evoke a discussion. So I am vowing to be provocative and use swears more! It worked for Donald Trump after all (he says, provocatively).
    Do notice, I made several points about housing and expressed my opinion. It’s just couched in humor, sarcasm, and swears. But it’s there — in spades.
    However, a couple of people criticized me and/or my writing style. These same people added nothing to the the conversation on housing. Nothing. Maybe, maybe, you could assume that they like DG, or breaking promises on forever, or paving land next to creeks, or are paid by developers. I don’t know. Because they just criticized me. So I criticize them for — not criticizing me, couldn’t care less — but for adding nothing to the conversation.
    Or are they afraid of ‘adult’ conversations, that have swears and criticism? After all, CP said: “an adult, objective rebuttal of someone’s position would be more helpful community discourse.” Uh huh. Yup . . . . . . yup.
    So by all means, rebut my rebut. Child conversations don’t contain swears. Adult conversations do. Not that you have to swears. But y’all do gut to rebutt.

    Reply
  19. Colin Walsh

    Alan – Catherine Portman is the leading advocate for burrowing owls in our area. I assure you her concerns about language and style being a barrier for some readers are sincere. I also think it is true that swear words and aggressive style can be a turn off for some readers.
    I would also add however that insistence on decorum favors the powerful.

    Reply
  20. Alan C. Miller

    CW, I like burrowing owls. And as I’m sure you know, nothing personal to anyone, I was just pointing out that along with criticism of my stylistic extremism, nothing was added to the conversation on housing. I’m not using such aggressive on anyone who engages. The over-the-top is due to my status ‘over there’. While I would have criticized ‘over there’, I am being outrageously outrageous due to the shut out. It didn’t have to be that way.

    Reply
  21. Roberta L. Millstein

    At a number of times in the past, some of you (I think Alan included) have expressed skepticism that language can put some people off from the conversation. Then when you’re given two examples, you brush them off and castigate them for not engaging in something they said they weren’t comfortable in engaging with. Well, you get what you get. If you only want to speak to people who speak like you, then you can keep using the approach you’ve been using — is that success?
    I fail to see how calling someone a “dumb ass” helps the conversation in any way, much less adheres to the Davisite’s policies.
    There have been many times, some of them in recent weeks, that I have thought about weighing in but frankly, was too embarrassed to be associated with any of it. Again, you can dismiss me for being too sensitive or whatever, but decide what you want to be — a place where most people feel comfortable engaging or a place where people are put off not by the content but by the way it was expressed. And I will have to decide how long I want to keep supporting this blog if it continues this way, because I just don’t have it in me to fight this battle. I’ll just walk away.

    Reply
  22. Alan C. Miller

    Up to you, RM
    Maybe you should throw me off the Davisite, and then I can hold the distinction of being the only person banned from both the Vanguard and the Davisite.
    Then I’ll have to start a Substack like Bob Dunning, or join Facebook and post with the loons on Beth Bourne’s Facebook Page.
    Or buy the Enterprise. For $1

    Reply
  23. Roberta L. Millstein

    Maybe you can explain to me how calling someone a dumb ass is not a personal attack.

    Reply
  24. Alan C. Miller

    It was plural, you and yours. I was calling everyone who uses the term “crisis” when it comes to housing: ‘dumb asses’. So it wasn’t a personal attack, it was a broad attack on a very large number of people in Davis.
    “Housing Crisis” ends the conversation, just like “Genocide” ends the conversation. You’ve taken your stance, chosen your tribe. End of conversation. You say “Crisis” or “Genocide” and the other team is just “wrong”. To ‘them’, there’s no question that there is a crisis. So I lowered myself to their level with a conversation stopper. They say “Crisis”, I say “Dumb Asses”.

    Reply
  25. Roberta L. Millstein

    Please. The article was clearly directed at Greenwald, starting at the title and continuing from there. The clearest and most straightforward inference is that the “you” in the sentence is Greenwald.

    Reply
  26. Alan C. Miller

    You asked about “dumbasses”. Now you’re moving the goal post.
    Jesus F-ing Christ this is a stupid conversation, on both our parts. It’s not even entertaining, which is all I ask of a conversation.

    Reply
  27. Roberta L. Millstein

    No, you misunderstand me. I am not talking about the rest of the article. I am just saying that that is the context for the dumb asses comment, that makes it clear that when you say dumbass you mean Greenwald. We don’t have a rule against personal attack that has an exception for people that we don’t like or people we think have behave badly. We just have a rule against personal attack. And that includes Greenwald.

    Reply
  28. South of Davis

    ACM didn’t “attack” anyone “personally” he just pointed out that doing something makes people “like like” like unintelligent donkeys (I’m guessing he meant to write “look like” rather than “like like” and that 90% of us read it as “look like”).
    “But it’s not due to a housing ‘crisis’, a term that you think creates a ‘crisis’, but actually just make you and yours like like dumb asses.”

    Reply
  29. Roberta L. Millstein

    Right. “A term that you think create a crisis.“ Who is the “you“ in that sentence fragment? Greenwald, to whom all of the previous part of the article has been directed, who is always using the term crisis, and who Alan has called out for that many times. Who is the “you“ in the second half of the sentence? Again, the most straightforward reading is that it is once again Greenwald who Alan is referring to.

    Reply
  30. South of Davis

    Maybe we can keep the Wildhorse back 9 and build high rise affordable like they did in LA to house the local homeless on the Wildhorse driving range (we can have a toad tunnel and owl tunnel under the building and a community garden in addition to the music room, art room, gym, TV lounge, computer room/library, and ground-floor cafe that they have in LA.
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/19-story-first-class-housing-tower-opens-las-skid-row-features-art-music-rooms

    Reply
  31. Ron O

    “nothing was added to the conversation on housing.”
    That’s probably the most-important comment in the comment so far. At least, nothing from anyone who might support paving-over the Wildhorse golf course/natural area, in regard to what they see as the benefit to address the so-called “housing crisis”.
    Then again, no one has actually defined the “housing crisis”, let alone its scope.
    It’s truly amazing to see (not only David Greenwald, but state politicians) use this phrase to implement laws when they don’t even bother to define it. And so few in the media or elsewhere even question it. One would have thought that the Internet would have improved news reporting and analysis, but the opposite seems to have occurred.
    I guess it’s supposed to be ingrained into our psyche at this point, in the same way that advertising works.
    Then again, we don’t even seem able to define “man” or “woman” these days. And on its surface, that seems a lot easier to define.

    Reply
  32. Frank

    “Maybe you should throw me off the Davisite, and then I can hold the distinction of being the only person banned from both the Vanguard and the Davisite.”
    Good. Be the victim now.
    “Then I’ll have to start a Substack like Bob Dunning, or join Facebook and post with the loons on Beth Bourne’s Facebook Page.”
    Bob has 4,000+ subscribers. Go for it. And why are you name calling people on BB page?
    When the lede heading has swear words attached to Greenwald, or anyone else’s name, I know I will not be enlightened, want to have a serious conversation about the topic and just be disappointed.

    Reply
  33. Ron O (aka – a usual suspect)

    “When the lede heading has swear words attached to Greenwald, or anyone else’s name, I know I will not be enlightened, want to have a serious conversation about the topic and just be disappointed.”
    I suspect that if Alan hadn’t included the naughty and insulting swear words, there would be no conversation on here regarding the actual points that Alan mentioned.
    And there still isn’t any conversation regarding that, other than from the “usual suspects” (of which I consider myself a proud member). As Alan himself has essentially noted – regarding the lack of response.
    David Greenwald also often bemoans the lack of conversation regarding the topics, but the moderation on his blog discourages this. For the most part, you won’t find that type of problem on here (with the exception of someone who once mentioned a “circle jerk”, among other insults). Which for some reason, did not generate any negative reaction (including from the moderator), except for the recipients of the comment themselves.
    But it’s good to know that some are reading the blog, at least.
    But since some are reacting negatively to it, maybe Alan should limit himself to one swear word or insult of David Greenwald per article.

    Reply
  34. Alan C. Miller

    F say: “Good. Be the victim now.”
    Yeah . . . Yeah . . . be the victim . . . that’s the ticket! Thanks, Frank!
    F say: “Bob has 4,000+ subscribers. Go for it.”
    I’m sure I could get at least 17 subscribers. Some would be people’s pets.
    F say: “And why are you name calling people on BB page?”
    I’ve never been on BB page. I’m not on any social media. If you mean the single word used, that’s not exactly personal. Even if I’d characterize most everyone from both sides who post there that way. Still not personal. Global.
    “When the lede heading has swear words . . . ”
    The exact swear in the lede headline was “*@#$%&”. Literally. If your brain filled that in, blame your brain, not me.
    F say: ” . . . attached to Greenwald, or anyone else’s name . . . ”
    Yes, that was the name in the headline. The lede headline. Follow, lede, or get out of the way, as they say. Headline, sir or ma’am.
    F say: “I know I will not be enlightened, want to have a serious conversation about the topic and just be disappointed.”
    Well, as I said, I gave my opinion on the topic, even if some y’all didn’t like my delivery. And once again, as I previously stated, a reply of criticism but no opinion on the topic. If that’s what floats your boat, keep ’em coming. But . . . if that’s all the critics have to offer, don’t expect, dear readers, to be enlightened.

    Reply
  35. Ron O

    Well, Alan – allow me to be the first to say “*@#$%&” you – and the donkey you rode in on.
    Hopefully, your donkey don’t mind people laughing at him.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKJAhXSaYtU

    Reply
  36. Alan C. Miller

    Yeah, well, “*@#$%&” you, too, Ron.
    Do you ever get the feeling some people don’t get the joke?

    Reply
  37. Ron O

    Mom – Alan’s insulting me again!
    And he started it!

    Reply
  38. Alan C. Miller

    Ronnie, I don’t care who started it . . . and wait until you father gets home.

    Reply

Leave a reply to South of Davis Cancel reply